Page 2817 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reserves or categories of open space, any stream, river, water body, or any Aboriginal site; secondly, scheduled activity, for example, quarrying, logging, alteration of run-off, any noisy or polluting industry, any development having potential for generation of certain traffic or parking volumes, and so on, based on some of the schedules in use elsewhere in proper legislation; thirdly, scheduled development size, in dollar value, say, $100,000 or more; fourthly, scheduled extent of land affected, for example, more than a few hectares.
There must also be provisions making it mandatory for formal EIA procedures to be invoked, even if the above threshold conditions were not met, if the proposal involved development of a sensitive kind or in a sensitive area.
The advice proposed to be given to the Minister would be polluted by the compromise in its formulation. If the Minister wants environmental advice, then I am sure the conservation movement is in a position to provide this. The Minister should not be getting environmental advice from the development lobby, as this motion proposes.
The proposal - not mentioned in the motion, but mentioned in Mr Moore's speech - is that the community is advised of the decision not to go to an EIS and then has 30 days for members of the community to apply to a non-existent tribunal to change that decision.
The whole proposal could best be described as woolly and badly thought out. At its worst, it is a cynical attempt to subvert public participation in planning by a shallow attempt to buy off the conservation movement by involving - - -
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I draw your attention to standing order 55, which says:
All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
I put it to you that Mr Collaery's imputations, that Mr Moore or Mr Whalan could be in some way bought off, are quite improper.
MR COLLAERY: Might I respond to that, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: I would ask you to withdraw that in the first instance, please, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: I will withdraw whatever the Chief Minister requests and remind her that it was her party that called Dr Kinloch "a silly old man" last night, one of the most disgraceful comments this house has ever heard.
MR SPEAKER: That is irrelevant, Mr Collaery.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .